Got it. Thanks
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Justin Cameron
wrote:
> Hi Avi,
>
> Actually, in Thomas' example you would need an additional 100G of free
> disk space to complete the compaction, in the worst-case situation (the
> worst-case would be that neither input SSTable contains any overla
Hi Avi,
Actually, in Thomas' example you would need an additional 100G of free disk
space to complete the compaction, in the worst-case situation (the
worst-case would be that neither input SSTable contains any overlapping
data or tombstones, therefore the output SSTable would also be roughly
100G
Hi Thomas ,
So IIUC in this case you should leave at least 50G for compaction (half of
the sstables size). Is that makes sense?
Cheers
Avi
On Oct 1, 2017 11:39 AM, "Steinmaurer, Thomas" <
thomas.steinmau...@dynatrace.com> wrote:
Hi,
half of free space does not make sense. Imagine your SSTabl
Hi,
half of free space does not make sense. Imagine your SSTables need 100G space
and you have 20G free disk. Compaction won't be able to do its job with 10G.
Half free of total disk makes more sense and is what you need for a major
compaction worst case.
Thomas
From: Peng Xiao [mailto:2535..
